IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to a child victim of electrocution is just.

Ashok Bhan J., President —

Appellants herein, who were the complainants before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 17.01.2005 passed by the State Commission in C.D. No.99 of 2002 whereby the Complaint has been partly allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-

Appellants are residents of D. No. 26-46-46 Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. Appellant no. 1 is the father of appellant no.2, who is a bright student and was promoted to 10th standard. Due to widening of the road, in the year 2001, the house of the appellants was re-modeled. The electric poles were in the process of shifting and the Deputy Executive Engineer of the respondents and their staff were fixing new electric poles. It is alleged that during installation of new poles, appellant no. 1 insisted for use of plastic pipes as the wires were touching the first and the second floor of the house of the appellants but the respondents did not respond. Appellant no. 1 also lodged several complaints with the respondents regarding the same during the year 2001-2002 to the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P., TRANSCO, Visakhapatnam to remove the wires as they were touching the balcony of his house and were dangerous to human life but respondents did not act upon his representations. On 04.05.2002, appellant no.2, while playing with her brother and other relatives on the second floor, got electrocuted due to passing of current. Because of electric shock, she fell down at a distance and her legs and right hand were burnt. Appellant no. 1 took her to the hospital where the Doctors removed her right hand completely and fingers of both the legs. Appellant no.2 also received several other grievous and simple injuries on her body and her nervous system was also affected. She is bedridden from the date of incident. Thus, being aggrieved, appellants filed a Complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency of service, gross negligence and dereliction of duties on behalf of the respondents. Respondents, after being served, filed their Counter Affidavit denying the allegations made in the Complaint. It was stated that the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation had taken up the programme of widening of the roads and, in that process, the existing poles were shifted to the road margin after widening. That the lines were laid by maintaining requisite clearance as prescribed by the Rules and, in fact, some portion of the building of the appellants was demolished in the process of road widening by Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. That the construction was made without notice to the respondents and in violation of Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. That the appellants did not make any complaint to the respondents with regard to danger by electric wires. That respondents had no knowledge of the appellant no.2 coming into contact with the live H.T. wires and sustaining injuries as there was no complaint by the appellants in this respect. That the complaint is not maintenance as the complainant does fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. That the incident happened due to negligent activity of appellant no.1 and construction of house closer to the electric wires in violation of the Rules prescribed. That there should be 4½ feet distance while constructing the building. That there is no negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the electric lines. That the appellants cannot take advantage of their own fault. Thus, denying all allegations of deficiency of service, gross negligence and dereliction of duties, respondents prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

3. The State Commission, after taking into account the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, held that the Opposite Parties have committed an act of deficiency of service and are liable to pay damages to the appellants. That damages claime